Jtpe 2017-0038

“Teaching Sportsmanship in Physical Education and Youth Sport: Comparing Perceptions of Teachers with Students and
Coaches with Athletes” by bolter ND, Kipp L, Johnson T

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education
© 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Note. This article will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal

of Teaching in Physical Education. The article appears here in its
accepted, peer-reviewed form, as it was provided by the submitting
author. It has not been copyedited, proofread, or formatted by the
publisher.
Article Title: Teaching Sportsmanship in Physical Education and Youth Sport: Comparing
Perceptions of Teachers with Students and Coaches with Athletes
Authors: Nicole D. Bolter1, Lindsay Kipp2, and Tyler Johnson3
Affiliations: 1Department of Kinesiology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA.
2
Department of Health and Human Performance, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX.
3
Department of Kinesiology, Boise State University, Boise, ID.
Running Head: Comparing perceptions of sportsmanship
Journal: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education
Acceptance Date: July 6, 2017
©2017 Human Kinetics, Inc.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2017-0038
Abstract
Background: Promoting good sportsmanship is a common goal of school physical education and
many youth sport organizations. Teachers and coaches play a key role in accomplishing this goal.
Thus, it is important to gather teachers’ and coaches’ reports of how they teach sportsmanship as
well as youths’ perceptions of those behaviors to understand if and how this goal is being fulfilled.
Purpose: To clarify the degree of alignment between leader and youth perceptions of
sportsmanship by comparing: (a) physical education teachers’ self-reported sportsmanship

Downloaded by CSU Fresno on 10/25/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0
teaching behaviors with their students’ perceptions of their teacher’s behavior and (b) youth sport
coaches’ self-reported sportsmanship coaching behaviors with their athletes’ perceptions of their
coach’s behaviors. Method: The physical education sample included 27 teachers and 837 boys
and girls aged 11-15 years. The sport sample included 32 coaches and 246 boys and girls aged 10-
15 years. Youth completed a survey about their leader’s behaviors related to sportsmanship.
Leaders completed a parallel survey about their own behaviors. Results: Teachers rated
themselves as significantly more often reinforcing and modeling good sportsmanship and
punishing poor sportsmanship than students reported. Coaches rated themselves as significantly
more often reinforcing and teaching good sportsmanship than perceived by their athletes.
Conclusions: Misalignment between leaders’ and youths’ perceptions of several sportsmanship
behaviors speaks to the importance of leaders engaging in strategies to accurately assess their own
behaviors.
Keywords: sport pedagogy, middle school, character, positive youth development

Physical education teachers and sport coaches can have an important and lasting influence
on the children and youth they work with, including effects on self-perceptions, motivation,
enjoyment, and sportsmanship behaviors (Horn, 2008; Smoll & Smith, 1989; Weiss, 2011; Weiss,
Kipp, & Bolter, 2012). Teacher candidates and aspiring coaches learn about evidence-based best
practices in college courses, workshops, and conferences, but is this knowledge translating to
practice? Are students and athletes interpreting feedback and reinforcement as intended? These
questions can be answered in part by assessing perceptions of teaching behaviors within the
physical education environment and coaching behaviors within youth sport contexts. In this paper,
we were particularly interested in perceptions of physical education teachers’ and youth sport
coaches’ efforts to teach participants about sportsmanship.
Sportsmanship in Physical Education and Youth Sport
Sportsmanship is a term used to describe behaviors reflective of a child’s or adolescent’s
moral and character development within physical activity contexts. Sportsmanship can
include behaviors in line with social norms (e.g., showing respect, maintaining self-control) as
well as behaviors that show concern for others’ well-being (e.g., encouraging a
teammate/classmate, helping an injured opponent) (Bolter & Kipp, 2016; Kavussanu, 2008;
Shields, LaVoi, Bredemeier, & Power, 2007; Vallerand, Briére, Blanchard, & Provencher, 1997).
Sportsmanship in physical education was discussed over 80 years ago by C.H. McCloy (1930)
where he outlined strategies for building character through physical education. He created a list of
sportsmanlike outcomes that physical educators should nurture among students, including showing
respect, playing fairly, and cooperating with others. Over the past 20 years, Don Hellison’s (2011)
Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility (TPSR) model has garnered attention from physical
educators as a framework for teaching students about respect and responsibility. The TPSR
instructional model includes a series of program goals focused on five interrelated and mutually
reinforcing stages of responsibility, including self-control as well as transferring responsibility
skills to contexts outside physical activity. Other pedagogical models address values and behaviors
that align with sportsmanship, such as the Sport Education model, cooperative learning, and
adventure education (e.g., Dyson, 2001; Hattie, Marsh, Neill, & Richards, 1997; Siedentop, Hastie,
& Van der Mars, 2011).
Currently, sportsmanship behaviors are an expected outcome of any national standards-

based physical education curriculum. Standard 4 states that physically literate students should
display “responsible personal and social behavior that respects self and other” (SHAPE America,
2014). Grade-level outcomes include a variety of sportsmanlike behaviors: following directions
(Kindergarten), exhibiting responsible interpersonal behavior (Grade 5), and examining moral
conduct in competitive situations (Grades 9-12). Given sportsmanship is an important goal of
physical education, it seems warranted to investigate how physical education teachers are teaching
students about sportsmanship.
Sportsmanship is also an important outcome in youth sport contexts. Drawing upon the
notion that “sport builds character,” lines of youth sport research have extensively examined the
social learning of good or poor sportsmanship (see Weiss, Smith, & Stuntz, 2008 for a review).
More recently, the positive youth development framework has been used to understand
character development through sport (Petitpas, Cornelius, Van Raalte, & Jones, 2005; Weiss et al.,
2012). A key principle of the framework is that supportive and competent adults should provide
opportunities for youth to learn life skills, such as sportsmanship behaviors, which are useful in
sport but can also be used in other life domains (e.g., school, home). Indeed, many youth sport
programs’ mission statements aim to teach life skills including sportsmanship (e.g., Amateur
Athletic Union [AAU], 2016; American Youth Soccer Organization [AYSO], 2016).
It is important to note that a significant amount of youth participate in organized sport and
physical education. It is estimated that up to 57.6% of youth in the U.S. participate in some form
of organized sport as a child and/or adolescent, and that the majority of high school students
(51.6%) report attending physical education classes on one or more days a week (CDC, 2016).
Thus, these contexts offer a significant opportunity to reach and influence young people and instill
values and life skills related to sportsmanship. Taken together, it becomes clear that sportsmanship
is an important goal of both physical education and youth sport contexts, with the potential to
impact a large number of youth who participate. What is less clear is how students and athletes
learn about sportsmanship in these contexts.
Influence of Physical Education Teachers and Youth Sport Coaches
Theory and research in sport and physical education emphasize the importance of youths’
perceptions of their teacher’s or coach’s behaviors in determining their own attitudes, behaviors,
and experiences (Horn, 2008; Smoll & Smith, 1989; Weiss, 2011; Weiss et al., 2012). For example,
Horn’s (2008) working model of coaching effectiveness, based in part on Smoll and Smith’s
(1989) model of leadership behaviors, acknowledges that youths’ perceptions mediate the
relationship between leader behaviors and youths’ responses; the athlete’s interpretation of their
environment drives their experiences in sport and impacts their well-being. Correspondingly, lines
of research studying coach and teacher influence have employed surveys aimed at assessing
youths’ perceptions of their leader’s behavior (e.g., Motivational Climate Scale for Youth Sports
[MCSYS], R.E. Smith, Cumming, & Smoll, 2008; a modified version of the Learning Climate
Questionnaire, Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2006). These perceptions are then used to determine
which coaching or teaching behaviors are the strongest predictors of youths’ positive outcomes,
such as perceived competence, self-determined motivation, and physical activity behavior.
Research has largely shown that when youth perceive their coaches and teachers to engage in
autonomy-supportive behaviors, create a mastery climate, and provide quality feedback and
instruction, youth report greater self-perceptions, enjoyment, persistence, self-determined
motivation, and sportsmanlike behaviors (e.g., García-Calvo, Sánchez-Oliva, Leo, Amado, &
Pulido, 2016; R. E. Smith et al., 2008; Standage, et al., 2006; Schwamberger & Curtner-Smith,
2016; Zhang, Solmon, & Gu, 2012).
According to Horn (2008), youths’ perceptions of their coach’s or teacher’s behavior
should strongly and directly influence their own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. However, the
leader’s actual behavior may differ from what youth perceive and thus researchers have been
interested in using objective measures of coach or teacher behavior. Studies in the sport setting
have found small to moderate correlations between observed coach behaviors and athletes’
perceptions of the coach (e.g., Curtis, Smith, & Smoll, 1979; N. Smith et al., 2015). Limitations
of this methodology have also been noted; for instance, observers may cause a reactive effect,
whereby coaches act differently in the presence of a researcher. Further, the process of watching
footage and coding behavior is time- and resource-intensive (N. Smith et al., 2015; R. E. Smith,
Smoll, & Hunt, 1977). Studies in physical education have measured teachers’ behaviors through
various observation tools (see Rink, 2013, for a review of measuring teacher effectiveness).
According to Rink (2013), one of the drawbacks to observations is that they focus only on the
behavior of the teacher, without assessing how students react and respond to a teacher’s
instructions. Taken together, studies focused solely on youths’ perceptions of their leaders’
behaviors or solely on observation of leader behaviors may be insufficient in understanding which
leader behaviors are present and how they influence participants.
Another option for measurement includes coach and teacher self-report of their own
behaviors. Measuring both teacher and student or coach and athlete perceptions in the same study
can clarify to what extent youth are perceiving what their leaders report they are doing. Previous
studies indicate that coaches’ and athletes’ reports of coaches’ behaviors show weak to moderate
relationships with each other (e.g., Boyce, Gano-Overway, & Campbell, 2009; Curtis et al., 1979;
Kavussanu, Boardley, Jutkiewicz, Vincent, & Ring, 2008; R. E. Smith et al., 1978). Curtis et al.
(1979) found weak, nonsignificant correlations between young player perceptions and coach self-
report of encouragement and instruction after mistakes, punitive technical instruction, and general
encouragement, among others. Kavussanu et al. (2008) assessed university team coaches’
perceptions of their coaching efficacy, or their belief in their ability to coach effectively, in four
areas: character building, motivation, technique, and game strategy. When compared to athletes’
reports of their coaches’ competencies, Kavussanu et al. (2008) found that coaches’ and athletes’
perceptions of coaches’ efficacy differed significantly in all four areas of coaching efficacy. While
previous studies focused on feedback and reinforcement primarily related to athletes’ skill
development, motivation, and self-perceptions, there is less research describing athletes’,
students’, teachers’, and coaches’ perceptions of strategies used to teach about sportsmanship.
Teaching and Coaching Behaviors Focused on Sportsmanship
Recently, Bolter and Weiss (2012, 2013) examined athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’
behaviors related to sportsmanship using the Sportsmanship Coaching Behaviors Scale (SCBS).
High school athletes participating in a variety of team sports reported perceptions of their coaches’
behaviors via the SCBS as well as their prosocial and antisocial behaviors in sport.
Significant pathways emerged between perceived coach behavior and athletes’ self-
reported prosocial and antisocial behaviors. Athletes who reported their coaches more often taught,
reinforced, and modeled good sportsmanship reported more prosocial behaviors toward teammates
and opponents; those who perceived coaches to more frequently prioritize winning over good
sportsmanship reported more antisocial behaviors toward opponents. These studies established
content, factorial, and criterion validity as well as internal consistency reliability for the SCBS as
a means for measuring athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ sportsmanship-related behaviors and
a window into the ways in which youth can be taught about sportsmanship. Bolter and Weiss
(2013) recommended that future studies assess sportsmanship coaching behaviors in various
contexts as well as with various methodologies to cross-validate youth perceptions. Thus, the
SCBS may be a useful tool in assessing how physical education teachers teach about
sportsmanship.
Several gaps in the literature inform the purpose of this study. First, few studies have
assessed leaders’ self-reported behaviors. This investigation will clarify if a mismatch between
teacher and student or coach and athlete perceptions persists and the magnitude of any
discrepancies. Second, past research examining social influences in sport and physical education
has mostly focused on feedback, reinforcement, and motivational climate; the present study
includes coaching and teaching behaviors focused on sportsmanship to add to the literature on how
sportsmanship is taught in these two important developmental contexts. Finally, the present study
can help future researchers understand whether the SCBS is a valid tool that can be used to measure
teaching sportsmanship in physical education. The main purpose of this study was to compare (a)
physical education teachers’ self-report of their sportsmanship teaching behaviors with students’
perceptions of their teachers’ behaviors (physical education sample), and (b) coaches’ self-report
of their sportsmanship coaching behaviors with athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ behaviors
(youth sport sample). Based on previous research (Kavussanu et al., 2008; R.E. Smith et al., 1978),
it is hypothesized that adult and youth perceptions will show weak relationships with each other.
A supplementary purpose was to test the construct validity of the SCBS in the physical education
context.
Method
Participants
Sport sample. Team sport athletes from community sport leagues (n = 246) included 143
boys and 102 girls (one participant did not report gender) aged 10 to 15 years (M = 11.8, SD = 1.2)
that were recruited from a small metropolitan area in the Pacific Northwest and a small
metropolitan area in the Southeast of the U.S. Sports included basketball (52.2%), soccer (22.9%),
volleyball (11.8%), baseball (9.0%), and softball (4.1%). Players had been training with their
current coach almost three seasons on average (M = 2.79, SD = 2.58). Only teams who were at
least halfway through their season were eligible for the study to ensure that participants had
sufficient experiences to draw upon. Athletes described themselves as White (86.6%), Multi-ethnic
(8.1%), Hispanic (1.7%), African American (1.2%), Asian (1.2%), and Other (1.2%). The majority
of athletes reported their fathers (68.7%) and mothers (72.3%) finished college or graduate school.
Coaches (n = 32) included 22 men and 10 women with a mean age of 42.3 years (SD = 6.0).
Coaches reported having coached their current team for 2.3 seasons (SD = 1.4) and reported 8.3
years of coaching that sport (SD = 4.7). Sixteen of the 32 coaches reported coaching education or
certification experiences: 12 coaches reported a sport-specific certification or clinic (e.g., Cal
Ripkin Coaching Certification, United States Soccer Federation Certifications), and four reported
a general coach training (e.g., Positive Coaching Alliance). Coaches described themselves as
White (84.4%), African American (6.3%), Asian (3.1%), Hispanic (3.1%), and Multi-ethnic
(3.1%).
Physical education sample. Students (n = 837) from seven middle schools in a large
school district located in the Pacific Northwest of the United States included 424 boys and 410
girls (3 students did not report gender) aged 11 to 15 years (M = 12.9, SD = 1.1). Students described
themselves as White (75.9%), Multi-ethnic (13%), Hispanic (3.5%), Asian (2.5%), Native
American Indian (1.8%), African American (1.2%), and Other (2.0%). The majority of participants
reported their fathers (63.6%) and mothers (62.2%) finished college or graduate school. Students
were surveyed in the latter half of the Spring semester of their school year, ensuring they had
sufficient time from the beginning of the semester to observe and experience their physical
education teachers’ behaviors. Teachers (n = 27) included 15 men and 12 women with a mean age
of 38.4 years (SD = 7.2). Teachers described themselves as White (96.3%) and Other (3.7%); 0%
reported they were African American, Asian, Hispanic, Native American Indian, or Multi-ethnic.
The majority of teachers (20 of 27) reported working in a suburban school, six teachers reported
working in an urban setting, and one teacher did not indicate the setting in which they worked. On
average, teachers had 9.9 years of experience teaching physical education (SD = 7.6). The highest
degree earned for most teachers was a Bachelor’s degree (74.1%), with a smaller number reporting
to have also earned a Master’s degree (25.9%). A small number of teachers (6 of 27) reported they
were members in a professional association. National and state physical education content
standards, including standards addressing personal and social responsibility, served as the
framework for the physical education curriculum in each of the schools; a multi-activity
curriculum model was employed where two- or three-week introductory units of a variety of team
and individual/dual sports and fitness-based activities were taught. Content was presented to
students via direct instruction. While motor/sport skill and health-related physical fitness were the
primary outcomes of concern, teachers were also expected to emphasize personal and social
responsibility outcomes as specified in both national and state content standards.
Measures
Sport sample.
Coaching behaviors related to sportsmanship. The Sportsmanship Coaching Behaviors
Scale (SCBS; Bolter & Weiss, 2013) is a 24-item scale used to assess athlete perceptions of
coaching behaviors focused on developing sportsmanship. Six subscales include four items each
and reflect one of six coaching behaviors: sets expectations for good sportsmanship, reinforces
good sportsmanship, punishes poor sportsmanship, teaches good sportsmanship, models good
sportsmanship, and prioritizes winning over good sportsmanship. After reading definitions of good
and poor sportsmanship, athletes were presented with each item (e.g., “My coach is a role model
for good sportsmanship”) and asked to respond on a 5-point scale: never, rarely, sometimes, often,
and very often. Example items for the other subscales include: “My coach creates an expectation
for athletes to be good sports,” “My coach praises athletes for showing good sportsmanship,” “My
coach punishes athletes who display poor sportsmanship,” “My coach instructs athletes how to act
in sportsmanlike ways,” and “My coach focuses on winning more than on being a good sport.”
Items were averaged to form subscale scores. Bolter and Kipp (2016) showed factorial validity
and internal consistency reliability of this scale with middle school athletes with one wording
change that was used in the present study: “My coach prioritizes winning over being a good sport”
was changed to “My coach makes winning more important than being a good sport.” Coaches
completed a modified version of the survey with each item stem changed to “I” and responded on
an identical 5-point scale to the athlete version.

Physical education sample.
Teaching behaviors related to sportsmanship. Physical education students and teachers
completed a version of the SCBS (Bolter & Weiss, 2013) that was adapted to the physical
education context. The same 24 items representing 6 behaviors as in the original SCBS were used
for this modified version. The scale was modified for the physical education sample by changing
“coach” to “teacher” and “athlete” or “player” to “student”.
Procedure
Approval from a university Institutional Review Board was attained for this study.
We recruited physical education teachers separate from our recruitment of youth sport coaches,
resulting in two independent samples. Although some of the youth sport coaches were recruited
from the same geographical region as the physical education teachers, the sport teams were from
community leagues and none of the teachers were coaches in these leagues.
Sport sample. Coaches of community sport leagues were contacted by phone and e-mail
and invited to participate in the study. Two visits were made to each participating team’s practice:
first to describe the study purpose to coaches and players and distribute parental consent forms,
and second to administer the survey. Athletes with parental consent and who assented themselves
completed the survey away from coaches and parents. They were assured there were no right or
wrong answers and that their responses would remain confidential. Some athletes completed the
survey via paper and pencil while others completed an identical, electronic version of the survey
using an iPad. All coaches consented and completed their survey at the same time as the athletes,
in an area away from the players.
Physical education sample. Approval from the participating school district’s board was
also obtained. An administrator from the school district first sent an email to the principals of the
middle schools in the district requesting their approval for the study and permission to contact
teachers directly. Approval was received from 10 of the 12 principals, whose teachers were
subsequently contacted by the district administrator to inform them about the study. We followed
up with teachers at seven of the schools and arranged a time to visit each physical education class
twice: once to invite students to participate and distribute parental consent forms and again to
complete data collection. At the beginning of the survey, each participant was told there were no
right or wrong answers and that their responses would remain confidential. Students assented and
were seated away from each other while completing their paper-and-pencil surveys. In a separate
area away from students, teachers completed a consent form and their survey at the same time as
their students.
Data Analysis
To address the main purpose of the study, preliminary analyses included data screening to
check for normality, outliers, and missing data, and tests of internal consistency reliability for each
subscale for each group (athletes, students, coaches, teachers). Descriptive statistics included
means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables within each subsample. For
students and athletes, individual scores were computed as well as scores averaged across the 27
classrooms and 32 teams. Two types of analyses were used to compare youth perceptions with
leader ratings: correlations and MANOVAs. For these analyses, the classroom or team was used
as the unit of analysis because teachers reported on how they taught sportsmanship to the class as
a whole, and coaches reported on teaching sportsmanship to the team as a whole, consistent with
the approach of Curtis et al. (1979). We examined Pearson’s correlations between students’
perceptions of teacher behaviors (averaged across class) and teachers’ self-report of their
sportsmanship teaching behaviors. Then correlations between athletes’ perceptions of coach

behaviors (averaged across team) and coaches’ self-report of their sportsmanship coaching
behaviors were examined to determine if significant relationships existed between youth and adult
perceptions. Correlations were considered weak (<|.3|) moderate (|.3-.7|) or strong (>|.7|) (Cohen,
1992). Two MANOVAs were employed to identify overall differences between (a) teacher and
student perceptions and (b) coach and athlete perceptions on each subscale. For the supplementary
purpose, a confirmatory factor analysis (6 factors with 4 items each) was conducted to test the
construct validity of the SCBS in the physical education domain. Model fit was assessed with
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). A good fitting model is represented by GFI,
CFI, and NNFI values > .95 and RMSEA values < .05 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Factor loadings were
also examined for significance.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Data screening revealed a small amount of missing data (i.e., less than 5%). Since there
was no discernable pattern of the missing values, missing data were deemed missing completely
at random (MCAR) and mean imputation was used in favor of listwise deletion (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2007). All values of skewness (< |3.0|) and kurtosis (< |8.0|) were acceptable, suggesting
the data were normally distributed (Kline, 2011). Analyses showed that youth participants used
the full range of scores (1-5) for the majority of the items, showing variability in perceptions of
teacher and coach behaviors. Coaches and teachers showed less variability in their responses to
items compared to youth. Alpha coefficients for all subscales showed acceptable internal
consistency reliability for all four groups: Physical education students ranged from .88 to .92,
athletes ranged from .84 to .89, teachers ranged from .78 to .94, and coaches ranged from .80 to
.95. Acceptable reliability values for the student, teacher, and coach samples are particularly
important because these versions of the SCBS were created for this study.
Mean scores showed that physical education students perceived their teachers often model
good sportsmanship and sometimes punish poor sportsmanship. They also reported their teachers
sometimes teach and reinforce good sportsmanship as well as rarely prioritize winning over good
sportsmanship (see Table 1). Athletes perceived their coaches often model and teach good
sportsmanship, and sometimes punish poor sportsmanship. They also perceived their coaches to
sometimes reinforce good sportsmanship and rarely prioritize winning over good sportsmanship.
On average, both teachers and coaches reported that they often teach, reinforce, and model good
sportsmanship; sometimes punish for poor sportsmanship, and rarely prioritize winning over good
sportsmanship (see Table 2). Correlations among variables within group (teacher, student, coach,
athlete) were generally low-to-moderate and in the expected direction (see Table 1).
Comparing Teachers’ and Students’ Perceptions
Teachers’ self-reported sportsmanship teaching behaviors showed low, nonsignificant
relationships with student perceptions (averaged across class) for each subscale (r = -.02 to .32).
In other words, teachers’ self-reported behaviors were not related to youth reports of those
behaviors. A MANOVA comparing differences between teachers’ and students’ perceptions on all
five teaching behaviors was significant, Wilks’ Λ = .34, F (5, 48) = 18.67, p < .001, partial η2 =
.66. Results showed significant differences (p < .05) for three teaching behaviors: reinforces good
sportsmanship (partial η2 = .55), models good sportsmanship (partial η2 = .12), and punishes poor
sportsmanship (partial η2 = .07). Teachers rated themselves as significantly more often reinforcing
and modeling good sportsmanship and more often punishing poor sportsmanship than students
reported (see Table 2).

Comparing Coaches’ and Athletes’ Perceptions
Coaches’ perceptions of their sportsmanship coaching behaviors also showed low,
nonsignificant relationships with athlete perceptions (averaged across team) for each subscale (r =
-.28 to .22), indicating weak associations between coach self-reported behaviors and athlete
reports. Coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions were also compared using a MANOVA. The analysis
was significant, Wilks’ Λ = .60, F (5, 58) = 6.50, p < .001, partial η2 = .40. Results showed
significant differences (p < .05) for two coaching behaviors: reinforces good sportsmanship (partial
η2 = .35) and teaches good sportsmanship (partial η2 = .10). Coaches rated themselves as
significantly more often reinforcing and teaching good sportsmanship than perceived by their
athletes (see Table 2).
Construct Validity for the Physical Education Sample
The six-factor model showed a good fit to the data, 2 (237) = 558.27, p < .05, NNFI=.99,
CFI=.99, GFI=.94, RMSEA=.04 (90% CI = .037-.046). The correlation between teaches good
sportsmanship and creates expectations for good sportsmanship was high at .79. This indicates
statistical redundancy, so the “sets expectations for good sportsmanship” subscale was removed
from the model and not included in the main analyses. The subsequent five-factor model showed
a good fit to the data, 2 (160) = 394.17, p < .05, NNFI=.99, CFI=.99, GFI=.95, RMSEA=.04 (90%
CI = .037-.048), and all factor loadings were significant, meaning each item significantly loaded
on its respective subscale. Therefore, the SCBS showed favorable psychometric properties in
physical education.
Discussion
In this study, both physical education and sport contexts were examined to assess youths’,
teachers’, and coaches’ perceptions of sportsmanship teaching behaviors. Specifically, it was
important to understand how well teacher reports aligned with student perceptions and how well
coach reports aligned with athlete perceptions. Horn’s (2008) model of coaching effectiveness
notes the importance of both actual leader behaviors and youths’ perceptions of leader behaviors
in influencing youth outcomes. Thus, both youth perceptions and leader self-reports were assessed
to determine whether leader and youth perceptions align. This study generally showed
misalignment, which has important implications for coaches and teachers in terms of behaviors
used to teach sportsmanship.
Results revealed weak and non-significant relationships between coach and athlete
perceptions of coach behaviors as well as teacher and student perceptions of teacher behaviors
related to sportsmanship. This finding is consistent with previous research showing that athletes’
and coaches’ perceptions of coaches’ frequency and type of feedback and reinforcement were not
related (Boyce et al., 2009; Curtis et al., 1979; R. E. Smith et al., 1978). Curtis et al. noted that
coaches probably behave differently toward different athletes, and in turn athletes may interpret
the same reinforcement in different ways. In this way, it may be that some athletes’ and students’
perceptions are more congruent with their leaders than others. Therefore, the results reinforce the
idea that teachers’ and coaches’ self-reported behaviors may not align with individual youth
perceptions, leading to low correlations on average. In line with Boyce et al.’s (2009)
recommendation, coaches and teachers should to get to know their athletes and students on an
individual level and gauge how each is interpreting their feedback. For example, if a physical
education teacher witnesses a student disrespecting another student, the teacher could privately
discuss the situation with the student being disciplined to be sure he or she understands why the
behavior was inappropriate and what behavior would be more appropriate in the future. The
teacher could also ask other students who witnessed the episode why the displayed behavior was
inappropriate and how it could be improved in the future. Based on the student responses, the
teacher gauges student knowledge on the importance of showing respect during class and whether
more instruction and reinforcement is needed.
Results showed that on average, coaches and teachers reported engaging more often in
behaviors that promote good sportsmanship compared to the reports of their athletes and students.
Research on coaching efficacy has shown that coaches are quite confident in multiple aspects of
their coaching behavior, including motivation, character building, technique, and game strategy
(Chow, Murray, & Feltz, 2009; Feltz et al., 1999; Myers et al., 2005). One study focused on teacher
efficacy revealed that physical education teachers are also very confident in their ability to instruct
students, averaging above 8 on a 10-point scale (Humphries, Hebert, Daigle, & Martin, 2012). The
present findings reinforce these studies’ results that coaches and teachers are confident in their
teaching; this study extends these studies by focusing on behaviors and strategies used to promote
sportsmanship. Using in-depth interviews, McAllister et al. (2000) found that youth sport coaches
valued many aspects of sportsmanship (e.g., participation by all, respect, fair play). However, they
were unable to cite specific strategies for how they incorporated these principles into their
coaching. Taken together, it appears that coaches and teachers may be aware they should teach
about sportsmanship and are confident in their ability to do so, but they may be overinflating their
reported implementation of specific sportsmanship-promoting behaviors. In line with the positive
youth development framework (e.g., Petitpas et al, 2005), these findings reinforce the idea that
sportsmanship needs to be taught actively and explicitly and not simply valued.
Findings from the present study revealed significant differences between coaches’ and
athletes’ perceptions on two coaching behaviors (reinforces and teaches), as well as significant
differences between teachers’ and students’ perceptions on three teaching behaviors (reinforces,
models, punishes). These discrepancies echo previous research by Kavussanu et al. (2008) who
found that coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions of coaches’ efficacy differed significantly in all four
areas of coaching efficacy (character building, motivation, technique, game strategy).
Interestingly, both coaches and teachers thought they provided significantly more reinforcement
for good sport behaviors than athletes or students perceived. One explanation may be that leaders
believe they reinforce good sportsmanship but in fact do not engage in specific actions that overtly
reinforce youths’ sportsmanlike behavior. In this way, student and athlete reports may be a more
accurate representation of teachers’ and coaches’ actual behaviors. In fact, Curtis et al. (1979)
found stronger correlations between researchers’ observations and athlete perceptions of coach
feedback and reinforcement than they did between coach versus athlete perceptions. Another
explanation may be that leaders are indeed reinforcing good sportsmanship but do not use explicit
or obvious enough strategies for youth to realize they are being reinforced for their good behavior
(e.g., a subtle nod of approval or a vague “good job”). Thus, coaches and physical education
teachers may be unaware of whether and how youth perceive their feedback and must explicitly
gauge if athletes and students are indeed learning from them about sportsmanship.
A few other findings from the study are noteworthy. First, in the sport context, coaches
rated themselves significantly higher than athletes on teaching good sportsmanship. Perhaps team
sport coaches are cognizant they should be teaching good sportsmanship but are not as effective
as they believe they are, thus leading athletes to perceive significantly lower levels of teaching
good sportsmanship. Second, physical education students perceived a significantly lower level of
modeling good sportsmanship than their teachers reported. According to Hellison’s (2011) TPSR
model, which aims to promote values aligned with sportsmanship, it is essential that leaders
internalize the five levels of responsibility and model appropriate behavior for youth. Moreover,
interventions suggest that physical education teachers must be intentional with their instructional
strategies for promoting behaviors consistent with good sportsmanship, such as using role play or
creating teachable moments (e.g., García-Calvo et al., 2016; Schwamberger & Curtner-Smith,
2016). In this study, teachers perceived themselves as role models for good sportsmanship but may
not have specific strategies to help them teach/coach appropriate behavior to students. Finally,
coaches and athletes as well as teachers and students reported similarly low scores for prioritizes
winning over good sportsmanship. In this case, it is encouraging that youth and leaders are on the
same page that a win-at-all cost mentality is not the emphasis.
Results from validation of the SCBS showed favorable psychometric properties for the
measure in terms of construct validity and internal consistency reliability. Previously, the SCBS
had only been validated in sport contexts with middle school and high school athletes (Bolter &
Kipp, 2016; Bolter & Weiss, 2012, 2013). This study extends the literature by demonstrating the
SCBS is a valid and reliable tool that can be used to assess how students perceive physical
education teachers teach about sportsmanship.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Behavioral assessment in the present study focused on self-reports from coaches and
teachers and perceptions from athletes and students. Direct observations of teacher and coach
sportsmanship teaching behavior were not included, which should be considered in future studies
and compared to participants’ perceptions. Wright and Craig (2011) developed the Tool for
Assessing Responsibility-Based Education (TARE), a valid and reliable observation instrument

that can be used to measure the extent to which physical education teachers engage in observable
teaching strategies related to personal and social responsibility. While the TARE does not assess
behaviors directly related to promoting sportsmanship, researchers could create a customized
version of the instrument that uses similar methodology and would assess the extent and ways that
a teacher or coach addresses sportsmanship directly. Independent assessments, such as a modified
version of the TARE, would allow for triangulation among sources and an increasingly accurate
appraisal of the types of behaviors that coaches and physical education teachers use to promote
sportsmanship. Second, in the current study, we established validity and reliability of a measure
of teaching sportsmanship in physical education and reported perceptions of those behaviors. A
logical next step would be to see how coach and teacher behaviors (as measured by leader self-
report and observations) link to athletes’ sportsmanship outcomes (e.g., prosocial and antisocial
behavior, moral reasoning). Such studies would delineate how leader behaviors may influence
youths’ perceptions of the environment and, in turn, their developmental outcomes. Further, the
present study was cross-sectional; a longitudinal study would allow for more rigorous inferences
about study results. For example, it would be valuable to examine these perceptions over the course
of a season or throughout a school year to determine whether the agreement between
teacher/student and coach/athlete perceptions fluctuate over time. Finally, intentional sampling
was used to recruit middle school aged boys and girls in physical education and team sports and
their teachers and coaches; however, some coaches and principals did not agree to participate,
which may reduce generalizability of the results to other physical education classes and youth sport
teams.
Implications for Physical Education Teacher Education and Coaching Education Programs
Results from the present study suggest areas for improvement in teaching sportsmanship
in both physical education and youth sport contexts. First, it is important for coaches and
physical education teachers to produce accurate self-evaluations of their behavior. For example,
using an adapted version of the TARE (Wright & Craig, 2011) focused on sportsmanship-
promoting behaviors, coaches and teachers can keep track of how many times in a practice or class
they recognize good sportsmanship and reinforce it or how often they model good or poor
sportsmanship. They might also ask a colleague to observe them a couple times per year to obtain
an objective account of their behavior. Second, coaches and teachers need to ensure athletes and
students are picking up on their attempts to reinforce and model good sportsmanship, as well as
punish poor sportsmanship. Hellison (2011) suggests informal student assessments, such as verbal
checks for understanding and debriefing sessions, and formal assessments, such as daily logs or
journal entries, are essential for determining the extent to which students are learning about and
adopting personal and social responsibility. Similar assessment methods could be used during class
and practice to determine students’ and athletes’ understanding of sportsmanship and
appropriate/inappropriate behavior. Information from these assessments may clarify how students
and athletes are perceiving the lessons taught by their coach or teacher. Finally, physical education
teacher education and coaching education programs should offer opportunities to learn more about
strategies for teaching sportsmanship specifically. For example, researchers have found support
for job-embedded professional development as a means for helping physical education teachers
educators implement a TPSR-based curricular model (Hemphill, Templin, & Wright, 2015; Lee &
Choi, 2015).
Conclusion
Results from the present study showed that physical education teachers and their students,
as well as coaches and their athletes, hold similar perceptions about the use of several strategies
used to teach sportsmanship. However, teachers and coaches overestimated the frequency with
which they use some teaching strategies, such as the reinforcement of sportsmanship. In 1978,
R.E. Smith et al. concluded that coaches are limited in their ability to report their own behavior.
Nearly 40 years later, findings suggest this problem remains among some youth sport coaches as
well as some physical education teachers. This study highlights a disconnect between these
leaders’ self-perceptions and the perceptions of the youth they work with. It is possible that despite
best intentions, physical education teachers and coaches lack knowledge of how to effectively
deliver sportsmanship-related lessons. Therefore, given the importance of sportsmanship as an
outcome in physical education and youth sport contexts, those who offer physical education
teacher preparation and coach education programs would benefit from emphasizing specific
examples and providing opportunities to practice strategies that nurture sportsmanship among their
students and athletes.

References
Amateur Athletic Union (2016). Retrieved from:

http://image.aausports.org/handbooks/boys_basketball/2016Handbook.pdf
American Youth Soccer Organization (2016). Retrieved from: www.ayso.org
Bolter, N. D., & Kipp, L. E. (2016). Coaching behaviors, psychological need satisfaction, and
young athletes’ sportspersonship behaviors: A test of basic needs theory. International
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Advance online publication. DOI:
10.1080/1612197X.2016.1142461
Bolter, N. D., & Weiss, M. R. (2012). Coaching for character: Development of the
Sportsmanship Coaching Behaviors Scale (SCBS). Sport, Exercise, and Performance
Psychology, 1, 73-90.
Bolter, N. D., & Weiss, M. R. (2013). Coaching behaviors and adolescent athletes’
sportspersonship outcomes: Further validation of the Sportsmanship Coaching Behaviors
Scale (SCBS). Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 2, 32-47.
Boyce, B. A., Gano-Overway, L. A., & Campbell, A. L. (2009). Perceived motivational climate's
influence on goal orientations, perceived competence, and practice strategies across the
athletic season. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 381-394.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2016, June 10). Youth risk behavior
surveillance—United States, MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 65(6), 1-
174. Retrieved from
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/2015/ss6506_updated.pdf
Chow, G. M., Murray, K. E., & Feltz, D. L. (2009). Individual, team, and coach predictors of
players’ likelihood to aggress in youth soccer. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
31, 425-443.
Conroy, D. E., & Coatsworth, J. D. (2007). Assessing autonomy-supportive coaching strategies
in youth sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 671-684.
Curtis, B., Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (1979). Scrutinizing the skipper: A study of leadership
behaviors in the dugout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64 (4), 391-400.
Dyson, B. (2001). Cooperative learning in an elementary physical education program. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 264-281.
Feltz, D. L., Chase, M. A., Moritz, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (1999). A conceptual model of
coaching efficacy: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 91, 765-776.
García-Calvo, T., Sánchez-Oliva, D., Leo, F. M., Amado, D., & Pulido, J. J. (2016). Effects of an
intervention programme with teachers on the development of positive behaviours in
Spanish physical education classes. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21, 572-
588. DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2015.1043256
Hattie, J., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T., & Richards, G. E. (1997). Adventure education and outward
bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of Educational
Research, 1, 43-87.
Hellison, D. R. (2011). Teaching responsibility through physical activity (3rd ed.). Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Hemphill, M. A., Templin, T. J., & Wright, P. M. (2015). Implementation and outcomes of a
responsibility-based continuing professional development protocol in physical education.
Sport, Education and Society, 20, 398-419.
Horn, T. S. (2008). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in
sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 240-267). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Humphries, C. A., Hebert, E., Daigle, K., & Martin, J. (2012). Development of a physical
education teaching efficacy scale. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise
Science, 16, 284-299.
Kavussanu, M. (2008). Moral behaviour in sport: A critical review of the literature. International
Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 124-138.
Kavussanu, M., Boardley, I. D., Jutkiewicz, N., Vincent, S., & Ring, C. (2008). Coaching
efficacy and coaching effectiveness: Examining their predictors and comparing coaches’
and athletes’ reports. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 383-404.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New
York: Guilford Press.
Lee, O., & Choi, E. (2015). The influence of professional development on teachers’
implementation of the Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility Model. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 34, 603-625.
McAllister, S. G., Blinde, E. M., & Weiss, W. M. (2000). Teaching values and implementing
philosophies: Dilemmas of the youth sport coach. The Physical Educator, 57, 35-45.
McCloy, C. H. (1930). Character building through physical education. The Research Quarterly,
1, 41-59.
Petitpas, A. J., Cornelius, A. E., Van Raalte, J. L., & Jones, T. (2005). A framework for planning
youth sport programs that foster psychosocial development. The Sport Psychologist, 19,
63-80.
Rink, J. E. (2013). Measuring teacher effectiveness in physical education. Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport, 84, 401-418.
Schwamberger, B., & Curtner-Smith, M. (2016). Influence of a training programme on a
preservice teacher’s ability to promote moral and sporting behavior in sport education.
European Physical Education Review. Advance online publication: DOI:
10.1177/1356336X16653586
Siedentop, D., Hastie, P. A., & Van der Mars, H. (2011). Complete guide to sport education.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
SHAPE America – Society of Health and Physical Educators (2014). National standards &
grade-level outcomes for K-12 physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Shields, D. L., LaVoi, N. M., Bredemeier, B. L., & Power, F. C. (2007). Predictors of poor
sportspersonship in youth sports: Personal attitudes and social influences. Journal of

Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 747-762.
Smith, N., Tessier, D., Tzioumakis, Y., Quested, E., Appleton, P., Sarrazin, P., ... & Duda, J. L.
(2015). Development and validation of the multidimensional motivational climate
observation system. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 37, 4-22.
Smith, R. E., Cumming, S. P., & Smoll, F. L. (2008). Development and validation of the
Motivational Climate Scale for Youth Sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20,
116-136.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. (1978). Coaching behaviors in Little League baseball. In
F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Psychological perspectives in youth sports (pp. 173-
201). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Hunt, E. (1977). System for behavioral assessment of athletic
coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 48, 401–407.
Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1989). Leadership behaviors in sport: A theoretical model and
research paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1522-1551.
Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2006). Students’ motivational processes and their
relationship to teaching ratings in school physical education: A Self-Determination
Theory approach. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77, 100-110.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Vallerand, R. J., Briere, N. M., Blanchard, C., Provencher, P. (1997). Development and
validation of the Multidimensional Sportspersonship Orientations scale. Journal of Sport
& Exercise Psychology, 19, 197-206.
Weiss, M. R. (2011). Teach the children well: A holistic approach to developing psychosocial
and behavioral competencies through physical education. Quest, 63, 55-65.
Weiss, M. R., Kipp, L. E., & Bolter, N. D. (2012). Training for life: Optimizing positive youth
development through sport and physical activity. In S.M. Murphy (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of sport and performance psychology (pp. 448-475). London, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Weiss, M. R., Smith, A. L., & Stuntz, C. P. (2008). Moral development in sport and physical
activity: Theory, research, and intervention. In T.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport
psychology (3rd ed., pp. 187-210). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Wright, P. M., & and Craig, M. W. (2011). Tool for Assessing Responsibility-Based Education
(TARE): Instrument development, content validity, and inter-rater reliability.
Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 15, 204–219.
Zhang, T., Solmon, M. A., & Gu, X. (2012). The role of teachers’ support in predicting students’
motivation and achievement outcomes in physical education. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 31, 329-343.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Teachers, Students, Coaches, and Athletes
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Physical Education Sample

1. Punishes Poor Sportsmanship -- -.39 -.34 .19 -.38
2. Teaches Good Sportsmanship .31 -- .33 .21 .52
3. Reinforces Good Sportsmanship .38 .51 -- -.05 .04
4. Prioritizes Winning Over Good Sportsmanship -.06 -.30 -.02 -- -.21
5. Models Good Sportsmanship .16 .65 .39 -.41 --
M for full student sample 2.84 3.45 2.49 1.75 4.00
SD for full student sample .94 .94 .94 .82 .88
Sport Sample
1. Punishes Poor Sportsmanship -- -.33 -.05 .33 -.21
2. Teaches Good Sportsmanship .24 -- .36 -.06 .55
3. Reinforces Good Sportsmanship .29 .64 -- .03 .07
4. Prioritizes Winning Over Good Sportsmanship -.03 -.41 -.28 -- -.54
5. Models Good Sportsmanship .13 .60 .40 -.54 --
M for full athlete sample 2.94 3.77 3.09 1.87 4.33
SD for full athlete sample 1.00 .89 1.00 .94 .76
Note: Correlations for teacher and coach samples are on the top right triangles; student and athlete samples are on the
bottom left triangles. Means and standard deviations are for the full samples of students and athletes. Teacher and
coach means are in Table 2.
“Teaching Sportsmanship in Physical Education and Youth Sport: Comparing Perceptions of Teachers with Students and Coaches with Athletes” by bolter ND, Kipp L, Johnson T
Table 2: Mean Scores for Coaches, Teams, Teachers, and Classes
Coach Team Teacher Class

Sportsmanship Coaching/Teaching Behavior
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
1. Teaches Good Sportsmanship 4.15 (.66) *3.76 (.52) 3.58 (.79) 3.47 (.41)
2. Punishes Poor Sportsmanship 3.18 (.72) 2.95 (.61) 3.14 (.68) *2.84 (.35)
3. Reinforces Good Sportsmanship 3.99 (.74) *3.04 (.55) 3.60 (.67) *2.49 (.28)
4. Models Good Sportsmanship 4.26 (.60) 4.31 (.47) 4.37 (.55) *4.02 (.41)
5. Prioritizes Winning Over Good Sportsmanship 2.00 (.81) 1.95 (.58) 1.59 (.60) 1.74 (.28)
Note: Mean team scores reflect athletes’ scores averaged across teams. Mean class scores reflect students’ scores averaged across classrooms.
* indicates a significant difference between coach and team or teacher and classroom at p < .05.

Jtpe 2017-0038

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Jtpe 2017-0038

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jtpe 2017-0038

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“Teaching Sportsmanship in Physical Education and Youth Sport: Comparing Perceptions of Teachers with Students and

Coaches with Athletes” by bolter ND, Kipp L, Johnson T

Note. This article will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal

Authors: Nicole D. Bolter1, Lindsay Kipp2, and Tyler Johnson3

Running Head: Comparing perceptions of sportsmanship

Journal: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education

Acceptance Date: July 6, 2017

©2017 Human Kinetics, Inc.

sportsmanship by comparing: (a) physical education teachers’ self-reported sportsmanship

Conclusions: Misalignment between leaders’ and youths’ perceptions of several sportsmanship

Keywords: sport pedagogy, middle school, character, positive youth development

coaches’ efforts to teach participants about sportsmanship.

Sportsmanship in Physical Education and Youth Sport

Sportsmanship is a term used to describe behaviors reflective of a child’s or adolescent’s

reinforcing stages of responsibility, including self-control as well as transferring responsibility

& Van der Mars, 2011).

Currently, sportsmanship behaviors are an expected outcome of any national standards-

2014). Grade-level outcomes include a variety of sportsmanlike behaviors: following directions

conduct in competitive situations (Grades 9-12). Given sportsmanship is an important goal of

students about sportsmanship.

learn about sportsmanship in these contexts.

Influence of Physical Education Teachers and Youth Sport Coaches

such as perceived competence, self-determined motivation, and physical activity behavior.

instruction, youth report greater self-perceptions, enjoyment, persistence, self-determined

2016; Zhang, Solmon, & Gu, 2012).

According to Horn (2008), youths’ perceptions of their coach’s or teacher’s behavior

behaviors or solely on observation of leader behaviors may be insufficient in understanding which

leader behaviors are present and how they influence participants.

development, motivation, and self-perceptions, there is less research describing athletes’,

Teaching and Coaching Behaviors Focused on Sportsmanship

certification experiences: 12 coaches reported a sport-specific certification or clinic (e.g., Cal

responsibility outcomes as specified in both national and state content standards.

Coaching behaviors related to sportsmanship. The Sportsmanship Coaching Behaviors

an identical 5-point scale to the athlete version.

Physical education sample.

Teaching behaviors related to sportsmanship. Physical education students and teachers

“coach” to “teacher” and “athlete” or “player” to “student”.

in an area away from the players.

sportsmanship teaching behaviors. Then correlations between athletes’ perceptions of coach

also examined for significance.

Comparing Teachers’ and Students’ Perceptions

Teachers’ self-reported sportsmanship teaching behaviors showed low, nonsignificant

reported (see Table 2).

Comparing Coaches’ and Athletes’ Perceptions

Coaches’ perceptions of their sportsmanship coaching behaviors also showed low,

athletes (see Table 2).

Construct Validity for the Physical Education Sample

teachers’, and coaches’ perceptions of sportsmanship teaching behaviors. Specifically, it was

used to teach sportsmanship.

more instruction and reinforcement is needed.

reported implementation of specific sportsmanship-promoting behaviors. In line with the positive

areas of coaching efficacy (character building, motivation, technique, game strategy).

same page that a win-at-all cost mentality is not the emphasis.

education teachers teach about sportsmanship.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Assessing Responsibility-Based Education (TARE), a valid and reliable observation instrument

behaviors directly related to promoting sportsmanship, researchers could create a customized

a teacher or coach addresses sportsmanship directly. Independent assessments, such as a modified